Ex Parte Swanberg

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2018

13666328 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/666,328 1110112012 45992 7590 03/22/2018 IBM CORPORATION (JVM) C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE 2911 BRIONA WOOD LANE CEDAR PARK, TX 78613 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Randal C. Swanberg UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. AUS920120165US1 6009 EXAMINER NGUYEN, WILLIAM V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2018 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RANDAL C. SWANBERG Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 11-20 and 26-29. Claims 1-10 and 21- 25 have been cancelled. Claims 13, 18, 26, and 27 have been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 15.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 RELATED CASE This application is related to co-pending Application No. 13/781,254, which is appealed under Appeal No. 2017-009468. (App. Br. 2.) INVENTION The present invention relates to an "[i]ntelligent context management for thread switching ... achieved by determining that a register bank has not been used by a thread for a predetermined number of dispatches, and responsively disabling the register bank for use by that thread." (Spec., Abstract.) The independent claims on appeal are claims 11, 16, and 28. Claim 16 is illustrative and reproduced below with emphasis and paragraphing added. 16. A computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; and program instructions residing in said storage medium for managing multiple threads to be executed in a processor of a computer system, wherein said program instructions[:] determine that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread, and responsively disables the given register bank for use by the particular thread while still enabling the given register bank for at least one other thread, wherein disabling of the given register bank includes not restoring a context of the given register bank for a dispatch of the particular thread and includes not saving the context 2 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 of the given register bank when the particular thread is switched out of the processor. REJECTIONS Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Keller (US 2005/0138442 Al; June 23, 2005), Terechko (US 2006/0168463 Al; July 27, 2006), and Dixon (US 2007/0101076 Al; May 3, 2007). (Final Act. 6-9.) Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and David (US 2003/0105932 Al; June 5, 2003). (Final Act. 9--11.) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Keller, Terechko, Dixon, Hickerson (US 2010/0011345 Al; Jan. 14, 2010), and Gschwind (US 2009/0198966 Al; Aug. 6, 2009). (Final Act. 11-12.) Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Keller, Terechko and Mongkolsmai (US 2006/0150162 Al; July 6, 2006). (Final Act. 12-14.) Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Keller, Terechko, Mongkolsmai, and Brooks (US 7,478,225 Bl; Jan. 13, 2009). (Final Act. 14--15.) Claims 7-25 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-6 of commonly owned Application No. 13/781,254. 1 1 Appellant has filed a terminal disclaimer in Application No. 13/781,254 referencing the instant application. 3 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 ANALYSIS Â§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, and Dixon We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4--5) that the combination of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon would not have rendered obvious independent claim 16, which includes the limitation "determine that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread." The Examiner found that the usage evaluators of Keller, which determine a total use of the associated device, corresponds to the limitation "determine that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread." (Final Act. 7-9; see also Ans. 6-7.) In particular, the Examiner found that "Keller teaches counters to determine per-thread usage of associated devices [incrementing a counter corresponding to the particular thread] ... as an indicator of memory use such as access frequency [not used since a previous dispatch]." (Final Act. 8 (bracketing in original).) Moreover, the Examiner found that: While inter-arrival time is one indicator used by Keller ... , it is not the only indicator. The term frequency can be defined as the rate at which something occurs. . . . [T]he system would function by counting the frequency of access [number of dispatches] to be compared to a threshold value [predetermined number]. (Ans. 6 (bracketing in original).) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Keller relates to "energy management in a simultaneous multi- threaded (SMT) processing system including per-thread device usage 4 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 monitoring provides control of energy usage that accommodates thread parallelism." (Keller, Abstract.) Keller explains that "the usage evaluators ... are used to determine a total use of the associated device by all threads executing within an execution slice, as the power management logic is not thread-selective." (Id. i-f 29.) Keller further explains that "[t]he per-thread usage information is used to adjust the thresholds in memory controller and [to] set the initial power management states of the devices" (id.), such that "threshold values may be a single fixed threshold, in which the current inter- arrival time (or other significant indicator of memory use such as access frequency) of memory accesses for a given process and module is compared to a level programmed by the operating system" (id. i-f 34). Although the Examiner cited to the usage evaluators of Keller, which applies a thread usage threshold to determine power management, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Keller teaches the limitation "determine that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread." In particular, Keller provides an explanation with respect to usage evaluators as determining a total use of the associated device by all threads, which is based upon the threshold of "inter- arrival time" or "access frequency," which are both time dependent. However, Keller is silent with respect to the limitation "determine that a given register bank of the processor has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread" (emphasis added). Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Keller teaches the limitation "determine that a given register bank of the processor 5 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 has not been used by a particular thread for a predetermined number of dispatches of the particular thread." Furthermore, the Examiner's application of Terechko and Dixon do not cure the above-noted deficiencies with respect to Keller. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that "Keller [paragraph] 34 makes it clear that the threshold is based on usage over time ('inter-arrival time' or 'access frequency')" and "[t]he specific wording of Keller and the examples given for the basis of disabling a memory bank are unambiguously limited to time-based usage of the device, and such usage is totally unrelated to a flat number of dispatches regardless of time." (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4--5.) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Claims 17 depends from independent claim 16. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 16. Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 16. We do no sustain the rejection of claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12 and 14 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 16. Â§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Dixon, and David Claims 15 and 19 depend from independent claims 11 and 16, respectively. David was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 15 and 19. (Final Act. 9--11.) However, the Examiner's application of David does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon. 6 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 Â§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Dixon, Hickerson, and Gschwind Claim 20 depends from independent claim 16. Hickerson and Gschwind were cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 16. (Final Act. 11-12.) However, the Examiner's application of Hickerson and Gschwind does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Dixon. Â§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, and Mongkolsmai Independent claim 28 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 11. Mongkolsmai was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 28. (Final Act. 12- 14.) However, the Examiner's application of Mongkolsmai does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Keller and Terechko. Â§ 103 Rejection-Keller, Terechko, Mongkolsmai, and Brooks Claim 29 depends from independent claim 28. Brooks was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 29. (Final Act. 14--15.) However, the Examiner's application of Brooks does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Keller, Terechko, and Mongkolsmai. 7 Appeal2017-009464 Application 13/666,328 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-20 and 26- 29. REVERSED 8